TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the remaining amount of duty was deposited in three different installments. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notice proposing levy of penalty on account of delayed payment of duty. – held that - The duty was not deposited on being pointed out by Department but they voluntarily deposited the duty. In the judgements cited by Counsel for the Respondent-Assessee, we had already held that penalty can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The present Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 impugning the Order dated 03.12.2007 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the Appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed on the question of penalty. However, on the question of interest, it has been partly allowed. The Revenue is not disputing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t installments. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notice proposing levy of penalty on account of delayed payment of duty. The Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 22.07.2005 imposed penalty of Rs. 9.5 Lac under rule 26 of the Central Excise rules, 2002. The Respondent-Assessee filed Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide its Order dated 28.10.2005 allowed Appeal of the Respondent-As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad. The Ld. Counsel would submit that the issue involved in the case of Condor Power Products P. Ltd. was totally different. In the said case penalty was levied under Rule 25 of the Rules on account of delayed payment of duty whereas in the present case, penalty has been levied under rule 26 of the Rules. The Counsel for the Respondent-Assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s occurred on account of seizure of record, freezing of accounts by DRI and arrest of Directors of the Company. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was mens rea on the part of Respondent-Assessee in delayed payment of duty. It is not even the case of the Revenue that duty was deposited when it was pointed out by the Revenue. As we have already held in both the cases cited by Counsel for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
